Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[nimeoa]

Ya know, I really do have to wonder what was going on in the heads of Lynch and Frost while penning this. Despite people singing praise and citing season 3 as genius, you can bet your bottom dollar these same people would have been just as elated to see Cooper return within the first few episodes. I don't see how merely doing the complete opposite of what people want is somehow "brilliant." It's become so predictable and boring at this point. Poor Kyle MacLachlan and his talent have both been utterly wasted. Again, you see nothing but praise for "Dougie" even going so far as people saying he should win an Emmy for his portrayal. That's just ridiculous. He stares blankly, shuffles around, and repeats words. Any second rate actor is capable of this. Just 4 more hours of this... I think we can tough it out.

And you can call me a blasphemer all you want, but I really hope Q2 takes a crack at this with a fanedit when all is said and done.

[referendum]

Somebody said something about this the other day, on another thread.

I wonder how much of the altered tone of ( and the source of people's dislike of/ alienation from ) this series comes from the fact that in the first two series, most of the characters were either teenagers or young adults, and their parents, and in this series, most of the major characters are of retirement age, and most of the rest over 45?

[mlsstwrt]

Somebody said something about this the other day, on another thread.

I wonder how much of the altered tone of ( and the source of people's dislike of/ alienation from ) this series comes from the fact that in the first two series, most of the characters were either teenagers or young adults, and their parents, and in this series, most of the major characters are of retirement age, and most of the rest over 45?

This interests me too. It's been discussed a bit on this thread.

I think the youngsters (I feel so old at 39) brought a lot of energy, fire and passion to the original. They could be naive or misguided but that was part of their charm. Now Bobby, James, Audrey etc are all around the late 40s mark I think and have definitely mellowed out. Bobby was one of my favorite characters in The Original. He's obviously a much nicer guy now but much less fun as well (and less complex). I miss the old Bobby, James, Donna, etc. Of course this is not a criticism of The Return, it's inevitable that people mellow out as they age.

We don't spend much time with the young crowd this time but how different they are! Mike, Leo, Bobby and others could be a-holes in the Original but they either had warm hearts under rough exteriors or still had a kind of charm to them. The young crowd now are just vile aren't they? Maybe in a more real way but there isn't one of them I have any real feelings for other than distaste.

I think the lack of young people (or at least time spent with them) is contributing to the lifelessness of The Return for me. Not that older people can't be fun but youngsters just have more energy, hunger, angst, etc. And they're just at school so commercial realities of life don't mean they have to be going to bed at 11pm so they can be up for work in the morning! I really liked the balance in the Original. Now we spend most of our time with Dougie or Gordon Cole it seems.

That's one thing that's hard to pin down about The Return - just how completely lifeless it is. I find it utterly devoid of tension, excitement, energy. And I'm not talking about shootouts or explosions, just a general vibe. It feels so flat.

I've been kind of wanting to say something about shooting on digital as well but have resisted because I really don't want a 30 page technical discussion between people who have expertise on this. If Lynch is shooting on Digital just because it's easier or cheaper, it's a sin to me. I simply cannot fathom how anybody could prefer the look of The Return over the look of the Pilot. Whether that's down to Digital v Film, I don't know. But I don't understand it for a filmmaker who is really an artist and has the most amazing eye for how things look. On the other hand I find The Return so bad that it's not like it would be better if shot on film. Maybe the cold, lifeless, budget documentary Digital look is more appropriate for a lifeless show with lifeless writing and performances.

Twin Peaks now basically looks like Snoqualmie. The first time I visited there I was amazed by how small it was. The Original had a feeling of space which I loved, together with the fact that it was set in a town close to the Canadian border, not like 15 mins drive from Seattle airport (I'm exaggerating a bit).

Also has the Fat Trout Trailer Park move been explained yet? Even if it is I really don't like the fact that it's been moved to Twin Peaks (if it's meant to be the same place).

One thing that really shows how dull I'm finding this is that my knowledge of The Return is that of a casual viewer. Like people here and in other threads will mention some character and I won't know who they're talking about. I'm sure I'll get accused of not loving The Return because I'm not paying attention but I get so bored I end up doing other stuff while I watch. With the Original I was 13 at the time and I told my parents not to under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES interrupt me while I was watching. Now I find myself texting and stuff, while watching the show on my laptop (the idea of that would have been sacrilege to me).

Sorry for the long, dull and less than coherent post. In case anybody wants to challenge what I'm saying, please save your energy because I'm not saying it's correct, it's just a boring post about how I feel about this.

[Rialto]

This is good stuff but it is the wrong thread - especially so when there's a whole 'nother thread just sitting there.

Fair point, done now.

Don't worry, I have loads of other things that disappoint me in The Return, other than its tired gender tropes!

[boske]

That's one thing that's hard to pin down about The Return - just how completely lifeless it is. I find it utterly devoid of tension, excitement, energy. And I'm not talking about shootouts or explosions, just a general vibe. It feels so flat.

Bravo, that is spot on and exactly the feeling, the concept, that I have been narrowing on very recently, but was not perhaps eloquent enough to express it that accurately (English after all is not my mother tongue).

Now if not attentive of it, of that vibe, wouldn't it put an average viewer (not the Lynch super fans) into such mood as well? I have been thinking exactly that for the past few days, having that as the purpose of it all (and many people may not agree with me, that's fine). This notion of deliberate, not accidental or incapable, flat, void, cold, non-polished look has nailed it for me. Couple that with the fact that all these names and events are being thrown around and never properly or timely resolved, making it very very likely to leave the viewer dazed, disoriented, and exhausted.

[mlsstwrt]

That's one thing that's hard to pin down about The Return - just how completely lifeless it is. I find it utterly devoid of tension, excitement, energy. And I'm not talking about shootouts or explosions, just a general vibe. It feels so flat.

Bravo, that is spot on and exactly the feeling, the concept, that I have been narrowing on very recently, but was not perhaps eloquent enough to express it that accurately (English after all is not my mother tongue).

Now if not attentive of it, of that vibe, wouldn't it put an average viewer (not the Lynch super fans) into such mood as well? I have been thinking exactly that for the past few days, having that as the purpose of it all (and many people may not agree with me, that's fine). This notion of deliberate, not accidental or incapable, flat, void, cold, non-polished look has nailed it for me. Couple that with the fact that all these names and events are being thrown around and never properly or timely resolved, making it very very likely to leave the viewer dazed, disoriented, and exhausted.

Lol, your posts are far more eloquent than mine. Can't believe you're not a native English speaker, I never would have guessed. Have tried so had to learn foreign languages and never got beyond an intermediate level. So jealous of people with such a talent for languages.

Edit: Let's prepare ourselves to be told that the lifelessness (like everything else good or bad in The Return) is deliberate. Hope nobody gets offended, I'm not being (too) serious.

One scene in the original (which others have mentioned on this board) which really bothers me is when Leland runs into a solid wall and it SHAKES. I always felt like whoever was responsible for that should have never worked in film/TV again. It was a disgrace wasn't it? I get the feeling if it happened in The Return there would be 30 pages explaining why it was deliberate and had a much deeper meaning than some idiot having f**ked up.

I can feel a telling off coming my way again.......

[judasbooth]

As a way of returning to original point of this tread, and as a convenient segue from the digression into gender politics (I hold myself responsible as well), may I suggest rereading of Roger Ebert's review of Blue Velvet?

Many of the points he raises in it can be applied to the current incarnation of Twin Peaks. The funny thing is, Blue Velvet to me is a magnificent film, yet I think Ebert was 100% correct in his assessment. I'm not sure how it's possible for me to hold two opposing viewpoints on the same film, but there you go. Essentially, his main gripe was that Lynch set up challenging themes but didn't, for whatever reason, follow them through. As if he got halfway inside the dark stuff, then lost his nerve and let the whole thing lapse into clumsy satire. In short, by Ebert's reckoning, he lacked the courage of his convictions. This part nails it:

'"Blue Velvet" is like the guy who drives you nuts by hinting at horrifying news and then saying, "Never mind."'

He also points out that, contrary to popular belief, Lynch did not invent the whole light/dark dichotomy of small town life that is often credited to him.

We S3 sceptics have raised the much same point. The whole show thus-far has been all set up and no payoff. It's highly likely that the whole thing will end with no payoff for all the set up, or worse, with a clumsy cop-out. Why did then new show go this way? Why take all these well-drawn characters and dump them into a completely insignificant excuse for a story? Was Lynch overawed by the weight of expectation and the mythology built up over a quarter of a century so much that he didn't even attempt to pick up where it left off? At least season 2, despite all of its flaws, attempted to dig into Cooper's past. One of the more interesting concepts in that season was that, according to Jacques Renault, Cooper "brought the nightmare with him". This was a fascinating idea, and should have been explored properly. Cooper was our protagonist, but aside from his golly-jeepers, coffee and pie loving, morally redoubtable self, we knew little about him or who he actually was. Some folks have have suggested a wacky Diane Selwyn-style interpretation of the whole thing - that Cooper was, in the real world, the kind of person Windom Earl was, and that his journey into Twin Peaks was self-absolving fantasy of who he really wanted to be. Even that would have been better that what we've been left with.

[mtwentz]

As a way of returning to original point of this tread, and as a convenient segue from the digression into gender politics (I hold myself responsible as well), may I suggest rereading of Roger Ebert's review of Blue Velvet?

Many of the points he raises in it can be applied to the current incarnation of Twin Peaks. The funny thing is, Blue Velvet to me is a magnificent film, yet I think Ebert was 100% correct in his assessment. I'm not sure how it's possible for me to hold two opposing viewpoints on the same film, but there you go. Essentially, his main gripe was that Lynch set up challenging themes but didn't, for whatever reason, follow them through. As if he got halfway inside the dark stuff, then lost his nerve and let the whole thing lapse into clumsy satire. In short, by Ebert's reckoning, he lacked the courage of his convictions. He also points out that, contrary to popular belief, Lynch did not invent the whole light/dark dichotomy of small town life that is often credited to him.

We S3 sceptics have raised the much same point. The whole show thus-far has been all set up and no payoff. It's highly likely that the whole thing will end with no payoff for all the set up, or worse, with a clumsy cop-out. Why did then new show go this way? Why take all these well-drawn characters and dump them into a completely insignificant excuse for a story? Was Lynch overawed by the weight of expectation and the mythology built up over a quarter of a century so much that he didn't even attempt to pick up where it left off? At least season 2, despite all of its flaws, attempted to dig into Cooper's past. One of the more interesting concepts in that season was that, according to Jacques Renault, Cooper "brought the nightmare with him". This was a fascinating idea, and should have been explored properly. Cooper was our protagonist, but aside from his golly-jeepers, coffee and pie loving, morally redoubtable self, we knew little about him or who he actually was. Some folks have have suggested a wacky Diane Selwyn-style interpretation of the whole thing - that Cooper was, in the real world, the kind of person Windom Earl was, and that his journey into Twin Peaks was self-absolving fantasy of who he really wanted to be. Even that would have been better that what we've been left with.

Let me ask you this- is there any scene you've liked? If so, which one (s)?

[boske]

Lol, your posts are far more eloquent than mine. Can't believe you're not a native English speaker, I never would have guessed. Have tried so had to learn foreign languages and never got beyond an intermediate level. So jealous of people with such a talent for languages.

Thanks, it could always be better, and some people fare better or worse than the others, no big deal.

[boske]

At least season 2, despite all of its flaws, attempted to dig into Cooper's past. One of the more interesting concepts in that season was that, according to Jacques Renault, Cooper "brought the nightmare with him". This was a fascinating idea, and should have been explored properly. Cooper was our protagonist, but aside from his golly-jeepers, coffee and pie loving, morally redoubtable self, we knew little about him or who he actually was.

Yes, that was indeed fascinating. But that may have come from Peyton or Engels perhaps? Some of the wild theories, prior to the the launch obviously, had Richard Chamberlain playing Cooper's long lost/estranged father.

[judasbooth]

As a way of returning to original point of this tread, and as a convenient segue from the digression into gender politics (I hold myself responsible as well), may I suggest rereading of Roger Ebert's review of Blue Velvet?

Many of the points he raises in it can be applied to the current incarnation of Twin Peaks. The funny thing is, Blue Velvet to me is a magnificent film, yet I think Ebert was 100% correct in his assessment. I'm not sure how it's possible for me to hold two opposing viewpoints on the same film, but there you go. Essentially, his main gripe was that Lynch set up challenging themes but didn't, for whatever reason, follow them through. As if he got halfway inside the dark stuff, then lost his nerve and let the whole thing lapse into clumsy satire. In short, by Ebert's reckoning, he lacked the courage of his convictions. He also points out that, contrary to popular belief, Lynch did not invent the whole light/dark dichotomy of small town life that is often credited to him.

We S3 sceptics have raised the much same point. The whole show thus-far has been all set up and no payoff. It's highly likely that the whole thing will end with no payoff for all the set up, or worse, with a clumsy cop-out. Why did then new show go this way? Why take all these well-drawn characters and dump them into a completely insignificant excuse for a story? Was Lynch overawed by the weight of expectation and the mythology built up over a quarter of a century so much that he didn't even attempt to pick up where it left off? At least season 2, despite all of its flaws, attempted to dig into Cooper's past. One of the more interesting concepts in that season was that, according to Jacques Renault, Cooper "brought the nightmare with him". This was a fascinating idea, and should have been explored properly. Cooper was our protagonist, but aside from his golly-jeepers, coffee and pie loving, morally redoubtable self, we knew little about him or who he actually was. Some folks have have suggested a wacky Diane Selwyn-style interpretation of the whole thing - that Cooper was, in the real world, the kind of person Windom Earl was, and that his journey into Twin Peaks was self-absolving fantasy of who he really wanted to be. Even that would have been better that what we've been left with.

Let me ask you this- is there any scene you've liked? If so, which one (s)?

That's actually a good question. To be honest, I'd have to think very hard, as most of the scenes haven't been particularly memorable (which was definitely not the case with the original). I actually liked the whole backwards-forwards stuff in the room with the banging door and Ronette, sorry, American Girl. It was, compared with much of the show, stylish and atmospheric. But it's not Twin Peaks. If considered as a surrealist short, then yeah, great. I even enjoyed the ridiculous Wally Brando scene. But as I've said before, a bunch of random stuff does not a great TV show make. The scenes that take place actually in Twin Peaks (there aren't that many) are mostly boring. I know that a lot of the show's fans debate over their favourite "bit", but for me that's the problem. It doesn't work as a whole. You can make the fanciest and prettiest kite you want, but without a strong frame, it ain't gonna fly.

[Dreamy Audrey]

This is good stuff but it is the wrong thread - especially so when there's a whole 'nother thread just sitting there.

I sort of agree. Maybe it deserves its own thread?

Yeah, these gender issues clog up a thread (wherever they appear) somethin' awful (and are even not all that interesting) ...
Let's go back to whining, please

I don't think this is the wrong thread for this, because this is a thread for disappointed people and some of us are disappointed with gender treatment in the new series and that's not less important or less interesting than any of the other complaints about the series. And I don't think the gender discussion was clogging up this thread more than some of the off-topic fightings that went on for a couple of pages...

[mtwentz]

That's actually a good question. To be honest, I'd have to think very hard, as most of the scenes haven't been particularly memorable (which was definitely not the case with the original). I actually liked the whole backwards-forwards stuff in the room with the banging door and Ronette, sorry, American Girl. It was, compared with much of the show, stylish and atmospheric. But it's not Twin Peaks. If considered as a surrealist short, then yeah, great. I even enjoyed the ridiculous Wally Brando scene. But as I've said before, a bunch of random stuff does not a great TV show make. The scenes that take place actually in Twin Peaks (there aren't that many) are mostly boring. I know that a lot of the show's fans debate over their favourite "bit", but for me that's the problem. It doesn't work as a whole. You can make the fanciest and prettiest kite you want, but without a strong frame, it ain't gonna fly.

See there's where fans like you and I don't see eye to eye. To me the surrealistic scenes (The Black Lodge, the mauve room, etc.) feel like a quite natural evolution from what we last saw in Fire Walk With Me.

If I have any problems with this show, it's not with those scenes, but the exposition scenes, mostly involving Gordon, Albert, Tammy and Diane. But even those scenes are at least 'OK' (for me), they just don't have the re-watch IMHO that the crazier Lynchian scenes have: the surrealism, the accountant, 'squeeze his hand off!', etc.

And I guess I'll have to add that I LOVE the Part 2 Roadhouse music scene with the Chromatics- to me it was a very worthy successor to the Julee Cruse scenes from the original. However, the rest of the Roadhouse scenes I've been fairly neutral on. However, since they are mostly for the end credits, it's not been a big deal.

EDIT: I must admit, I like surrealism in small doses in the context of an actual plot that intrigues me. And that is why I am a Twin Peaks fan more than a pure Lynch fan. I do believe the plot of The Return is difficult to get a handle on sometimes just because so much is hidden at the beginning, but I also think it's pretty basic and compelling and that is why I am really happy with this new movie/show. It's given me really mind bending surrealism in the context of a compelling plot. The humor is also there, much more so than FWWM.

[mlsstwrt]

This is good stuff but it is the wrong thread - especially so when there's a whole 'nother thread just sitting there.

I sort of agree. Maybe it deserves its own thread?

Yeah, these gender issues clog up a thread (wherever they appear) somethin' awful (and are even not all that interesting) ...
Let's go back to whining, please

I don't think this is the wrong thread for this, because this is a thread for disappointed people and some of us are disappointed with gender treatment in the new series and that's not less important or less interesting than any of the other complaints about the series. And I don't think the gender discussion was clogging up this thread more than some of the off-topic fightings that went on for a couple of pages...

I mean you can post what you want of course and I don't think it's that it's less interesting or clogging the thread, just that there is already a dedicated thread it seems?

[Dreamy Audrey]

I sort of agree. Maybe it deserves its own thread?

Yeah, these gender issues clog up a thread (wherever they appear) somethin' awful (and are even not all that interesting) ...
Let's go back to whining, please

I don't think this is the wrong thread for this, because this is a thread for disappointed people and some of us are disappointed with gender treatment in the new series and that's not less important or less interesting than any of the other complaints about the series. And I don't think the gender discussion was clogging up this thread more than some of the off-topic fightings that went on for a couple of pages...

I mean you can post what you want of course and I don't think it's that it's less interesting or clogging the thread, just that there is already a dedicated thread it seems?

Yes, I guess the deeper discussions might belong in the other thread, but for me the gender thing is one of the many disappointing things of the series, so I think it's not too bad if the thread topics sometimes overlap. I feel more comfortable ranting about it in a thread that is especially for ranting